Twilight vs Harry Potter
by The Amber Author
Summary: My opinions and debates on why Harry Potter is a much better series than the Twilight saga.
1. Chapter 1

I did it. I finally did. And I'm ashamed of myself for this- I've tried resisting the temptation, but I really couldn't. I'm sorry, New Year Resolution, but well, somethings just can't be put aside. So here we go...

 _ **Harry Potter vs Twilight**_

First, let us get some facts straight- I'm thirteen, and if you have any problem with that, then please leave right now. I have the right to express my opinion and my age has nothing to go with it. Second, I read _both_ the series- I admit I haven't read all of twilight, but I did dig into the first book enough to experience the characters for real, and I did endless research on each of them, so I know of Bella, Renee, Charlie, Edward, Rosaile, Esmee, Alice, the Voultri, Jacob, Leah, Renesmee, etc. etc. et. Of course, I've read all the Harry Potter books. I've watched one Twilight movie which I haven't really understood, and two Harry Potter ones, though I admit I wasn't paying attention to either. I'm bookish that way. I know some important actors from both fandoms- Robert Pattinson, Daniel Radcliffe, Taylor Launter, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Tom Felton, etc, etc.

So first, let me tell you this will be a polite argument, a debate, really, without any intention of insulting twilight and its fanbase of twi-hards. As a person who read both books, I feel like I need to get caught up in this thrill and express what I think

So, let's start with what I thought _before_ reading any of those. Simple- I thought Twilight was lord and Harry Potter was kidish. Why, you ask? Well, because...I didn't know ANYTHING about Harry Potter. Twilight was what everyone talked about at that time- I had no idea what Harry Potter was, except that he was a wizard with dark hair and glasses, and there were seven books. Twilight was out of my reach because I'd heard it had slightly mature themes, so I caught up with the Harry Potter fandom last year, and I loved it. I finished all the books in less than one month. Seriously, read this. It's amazing. Trust me; it's not about waving wands and saying weird stuff. In Harry's own words, "there was more to magic than waving your wand and saying a few funny words."

So let's start the real debate, shall we?

 _ **Character vs Character**_

 _ **Harry Potter vs Bella Swan**_

Harry: For all those who don't know, Harry's childhood stared much differently than you can expect. What _do_ you expect? Well, I expected a poor orphan wandering the streets and suddenly discovering he was something special. You know what I got? I didn't get that cliche protagonist- instead, I got an _abused_ orphan who sincerely hopes he isn't special because his relative consider him 'freakish' because he can do magic (not that he knew it was magic at that time). The main story says that since he was fifteen months of age, Harry was left on the doorstep of the Dursleys when his parents died, very unwelcome there indeed. You know what those loving relative of his, Petunia, Vernon, and Dudley, do? Well, they make him sleep in a cupboard under the stairs (a small one, too) for ten years, don't bother to get him good glasses though he really needs them, and starve him in the second book before Harry's good friends the Weasleys come to the rescue.

Yes- they put bars on his window (second book, again) of the room they had given him in fear of wizards watching over the house (there were two empty bedrooms and they still made him sleep under the stairs!), and inserted a _cat flap_ to push soup through everyday. So basically, in _Chamber of Secrets,_ they pretty much starve him and lock him. It's disgusting.

From _Philisopher's Stone,_ here's a sentence said by his dear, dear Uncle Vernon: _"The car's new, he's not sitting in it!"_ Exactly. He treats his only nephew like a stray dog. Disgusting.

And what's worse? They give him hand-me-downs from his fat cousin Dudley, (who's like, four times his size though being close to his age) and let Dudley's gang beat him up constantly while they spoil their dear 'Dinky Diddydums' rotten. If that's not abuse, tell me what is. Being physically hurt is barely as bad as being locked away and forgotten by your own family.

And yet? Harry turns out amazing. He's generous, kind, and a curious little boy. He turns out with his flaws like everyone else- he's a bit prejudiced at first and quick to the point, but he's undoubtedly brave, loyal, and most important of all, _loving._ The fact that he is willing to give love, the very same love his blood relatives denied him, is spectacular. But now, enough about Harry's home life- let's get to Bella's.

 _ **Isabella "Bella" Swan.**_

The first book starts out with Bella moving to Forks in order to settle down with her father, Charlie Swan, who happens to be a cop there. Her parents are divorced and she originally spent only a month or so yearly at Forks, where she hates it ever so much.

Despite not having the best life, Bella is clearly loved by both her parents- don't get me wrong, everyone deserves parental love. But it seems almost as though Bella hadn't really been through severe tragedy. Not that protagonists have to go through it all the time, but a back story would have supported her character.

But perhaps what annoys my a bit about Bella is how...well, undedicated she is to her father, Charlie- proof comes when she steals some of her college funds to fix Jacob's motorcycle. Some may protest this as daring, but I say it's...well, a bit thick, really. And clingy. I certainly wouldn't have done what she did. This being said, Bella also rarely has good qualities...many say shes a Mary-Sue, a perfect character with any faults. I, on the other hand, think it's the opposite- Bella's divorced life doesn't seem to affect her all that much- of course there's always that she's a teenager and must have gotten over it, but at least a hint of her feelings about the ordeal would suffice- this should come more often. Her parents' divorce doesn't shape her as a person, whereas Harry's childhood with the Dursleys does- if he had been spoilt like his cousin, he would have come back into the Wizarding world as a pig-headed jerk, and no one wants an arrogant savior.

 _ **Harry Potter.**_

Harry is, in a way, perfectly imperfect. His faults? Harry is prejudiced, quick to jumping to conclusions, and sometimes, blinded by emotions instead of logic (the latter of which implies to Bella, too). This proves when he immediately suspects that Severus Snape, his least favorite professor, was the one trying to steal the Philosopher's Stone in Book 1, and how he, in panic, thought that Voldemort had kidnapped his godfather Sirius Black and was torturing him, immediately dismissed the fact that Kreacher may have been lying and the vision was a fraud by Voldemort to drag him into the Ministry.

But we love Harry this way. We love how he's reckless, blinded by desperation, and how he actually _pays for his actions._

Sirius Black-dead. It's the sad truth, and it pains me to admit it- but there's a chance Sirius may not have died if Harry had just though of using his godfather's two-way mirror to check on him.

 _ **Bella Swan**_

As far as I know, Bella does not suffer the consequences of any of her actions- she just doesn't. Everything she does is either insignificant or is dismissed without a huge complication, If you want to debate this point, then please, by all means, rebuttle this. But she just doesnt seem to make a mistake.

Her fault? She is clumpsy. And this is barely mentioned often. But I think she has other faults- she's immediately attracted to the good-looking Cullens and ignores, even forgets the names of those who have actually been trying to be nice to her and show her around. She also doesn't feel particularly guilty about a few things she should regret- like, say, the motorcycle incident again.

 **Comparing Session Over- Common Arguments.**

Here are a few common arguments that tend to spring up a lot during Potter/Twilight debates.

 **Bella would die for Rensmee:** I'm not going to argue that. It's true. She would definitely die for her baby. But then, who wouldn't? Hadn't Lily and James died for Harry? Hadn't Alice and Frank Longbottom been tortured to insanity because they were keen on protecting their only son, Neville? Didn't Sirius Black die for Harry, his godson? And what of Remus and Tonks? Didn't they fight in the war to ensure their baby Teddy had a better life, even if it was a life without them?

Molly Weasley, sweet, house wife who's life ambition is to make her children, and Harry (an honorary Weasley) gain some 'healthy weight'. And what does she do when Bellatrix Lestrange almost nailed Ginny, her daughter, and nearly ended her life with a killing curse?

Well, said sweet housewife will point her wand at mentioned crazy witch, yell, "NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU B****!" and kill her instead. Kudoos, Molly.

Yes, mothers will do the impossible to ensure their children' safety. That's just normal.

 _ **Here's a session I like to call:...Now you're just being RIDICULOUS!**_

Twi-hards, _please,_ I sincerely hope I don't have to repeat this more than once. _SIRIUS BLACK IS NOT A COPY OF JACOB BLACK!_ In fact, it's quite the opposite.

Now, let's get something straight: This significant resemblance between two characters MAY be purely coincidental, so don't rage on me twi-hards, but that's not the point. The point is that Harry Potter was written, published, and completed about eight years before the first book of twilight was even though, (or should I saw _dreamt_ ) 0f.

 **Sirius Black:** Sirius Black is not a werewolf- (though his best friend Remus Lupin is) but his animagus (the animal he can turn into) is a huge, black dog with sharp fans, which is a superstitious omen of death, known as a grim. Or it resembles a grim, anyway. Of course, it's a known fact since book one (which was by the way, published in 1997) that Sirius Black had a flying motorcycle. Rubues Hagrid clearly says: "Youn' Sirius Black lent it to me." during PS/SS. Now, Jacob is much the same- he can turn into a big black canine, his last name's 'Black' and he owns a motorcycle. So you can see where all the accusing is coming from..There, now _that's_ what I've been trying to get at.

 **So, I'm pretty done with this debate. I'll write another one some time later, like..maybe after a week or so with the three 'Character vs Character', 'Common Arguments', and 'Now you're just being RIDICULOUS!' parts. I have plenty things to update. *Helpless shrug*. Anyway, I'd like to state that I respect everyone's opinions, but I'm a Potterhead, and will ALWAYS be one. Forever.**

 **-Ambs**


	2. Chapter 2

Hullo, everyone! So this is not an official part of my debate, but I found these Twihard arguments that are so stupid it makes my head hurt. Of course, Twihards in general aren't all stupid- I know some really smart ones. But speaking honestly, THIS particular twihard needs some brains shoved into her. Perhaps I'm being a bit unfair picking up the worst arguments, but I'll have part of the next chapter dedicated to Twihard arguments that are WORTH rebuttaling, I promise.

So, here's this post I found on eatliver:

So here's what she said:

 **Booksets:**

 **Twilight: Modern, elegant, clean cut, fancy to the point.**

 **Harry Potter: well excuse me I was not aware we kept books in frickin treasure chest r we pirates now? Or other things that doesn't exist WIZARDS? OMG dumb ppl believe in magic, omg too much!-**

Ok, first of all, please use correct grammar and spelling if you expect people to take you seriously. We're not texting here. I'm pretty sure 90% of the twi-hards just facepalmed. Yes, sorry guys. You must be really ashamed. I don't blame you.

Secondly, have you ever heard of 'Don't judge a book by its cover? Clearly NOT. Since when did a book's value depend on its booksets? I can't say Twilight is better than, say, Percy Jackson because it has better booksets.

*Author would like to state she finds the PJO booksets much more appealing than the Twilight ones.*

Thirdly, please rephrase your last sentence. You twi-hards have posters of the wolf clan and the vampire Cullens all over your rooms. That's fine- us Potterheads have our own posters, too. But you DO realise, dear random debater, that vampires and werewolves don't exist, don't you? We KNOW magic doesn't exist. We KNOW wizards and witches are myths. We're not stupid. So saying Harry Potter is stupid because it has magic, would be like saying Twilight is equally stupid for having vampires and werewolves in it.

Now get ready sensible Twihards and Potter heads, this will have you slack jawed-

 **Harry Potter copied Twilight:**

 **Jacob BLACK: Stephanie Meyer creaters and original character with the last name BLACK, he is part wolf and is referred many times as half dog. He transforms and is very dangerous when he's in form. SOUNDS FAMILIAR?**

 **BTW, Rowling doesn't even cast a black actor to play SERIOUS BLACK, a bit racist? I though so to.**

I'm going to ignore all the grammar and spelling mistakes because, in all honesty, I'm too shocked by your stupidity to do that.

Yes, it sounds familiar. No, his name isn't Serious- it's Sirius, a constellation name. Harry Potter was, and I repeat this for the thousandth time, written and published and _completed_ before the first book of Twilight came out.

One- Jo Rowling isn't responsible for casting people. She's a writer, not a film maker. Secondly, Sirius Black is a naturally white character. He has been since the very beginning. And having the last name 'Black' doesn't make you black instantly. Is Taylor Swift fast? Does Richard Grayson had a grey son? Does Annabeth Chase like chasing things? I don't think so. And for your information, Taylor Launter isn't black, so your argument is invalid.

Now, going on to defend JK Rowling- she is ANYTHING but racist. Joanne Rowling creates characters of different sexualities and races- she has black people (Angelina Johnson, who goes on to marry George Weasley), white people, Asian people (Cho Chang), and homosexual people (Albus Dumbledore himself). As far as I know, Stephanie Meyer has only white characters. I'm not calling her racist by saying this- I'm just stating a fact. I know two Asians played in the movies, but none are mentioned in the books as far as I know. Shortly speaking, this argument sucks.

 **The logos: 'Twilight': Very unique and recognizable. Cute swirrel on the 'g'.**

 **Harry potter: bulky and dumb. who ever drew this clearly ha a twitch that activiately multiple times during the time they formed the stem on the 'P' in 'Potter'.**

Right...excuse me for a second while I go bash my head repeatedly against a wall.

Hi. I'm back with several lumps on my scalp. Where was I? Right...

About the 'twitch' in the Harry Potter logo, it's called 'awesomeness' if you didn't know previously. It's there to represent the lightning bolt scar on Harry's forehead and has nothing to do with 'twitching'. I agree that the Twilight logo is cute though, but being the grammar freak I am, it does somewhat annoy me that the 'T' in Twilight isn't capital. Oh well...Whatever. Besides, did you know Steph Meyer planned on titling her book 'Forks'? Forks?! You all have to agree that would have been a disaster. Fortunately, her editor came to the rescue with 'Twilight' as a much better title.

 **Next: The hidden message in tittles:** (Trust me, I know how you're feeling if you're thinking 'what hidden message?!' right now.)

 **Twilight: TwiLIGHT. Light means good, good means pure, pure means Jesus. The Title tells you to love His Majesty Jesus Christ. I love this title and I love Jesus too :).**

 **Harry POTter: First of all, the 'hairy', is subliminaly supporting bad hygeine. The POT is telling people become potheads and stoner and smoke pot and marijuana. My cousin is a Harry Potter fan and my aunt found bong in her room. PROOF!**

Oooh. Oh just...my God. Do you even KNOW what Twilight means? *Points to the sky* THAT IS TWILIGHT! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHRIST WHATSOEVER! IT'S IN DA FREAKIN' SKY!

Sorry. Got aggressive, but this is so stupid I think I'm rightfully allowed to. So if I title a book 'Hightlight' Will that make the title a promoter for Christinaity? Words have freakin' meanings! Twilight has nothing to do with Christianity, nor other religions. It is a FANTASY romance novel with FANTASY characters and a FANTASY names. Get real. I'm ashamed on the behalf of every twi-hard because I know they're not dumb. But you're just giving them a bad reputation- if you know what's good for you, you'll stick with polite and reasonable arguments.

Next- you just indirectly insulted everyone with the names 'Harry' and 'Potter'. This isn't a hidden message- and I won't be quick to believe that a someone like YOU can spot hidden messages. It's a frikin' book title. I bet next you're going to say Hermione's last name is telling b=us to be gangsters and that your uncle found a gun i your cousin's room. I'm sorry, but this kind of arguments leave a bad influence on yourself and other twi-hards who don't deserve this. Get real, please.

I'm a Harry Potter fan. _Suree,_ I'm hiding some cigarettes right HERE in my closet. Thick-head. *That was sarcasm if you haven't noticed*

Of course, she left the worst for the last-

 **Lastly, Authors:**

 **Stephanie Meyer is flawless and brings out the writer in each of us. 1 time my English teacher told me my writing reminded her of steph's and I was soo happy. I got a 'C' on the story because it was late :(.**

Ugh...*facepalm*. Well, I'll give Meyer's writing one thing- it's entertaining. Genuinely. And trust me, I doubt your writing can compare to here's- this article is proof. Of course, she's not the best writer, but she's not bad either. I quite admire her, actually- for sticking with her novel until it got published, that is. It's hard- in fact, I admire every published author out there. Meyer is NOT flawless. No one is. She's too descriptive, not good with foreshadowing, and her writing style just isn't the most gripping in general. I can ever say the same for Rowling- she uses too many adverbs *shudder*. But between you and I, I'd take adverbs over stuffed-description any day. Half the books are spent reminding us how perfect Edward looked- we know how the characters look. She just repeats it in an unnecessary amount.

 **OK- First of all, I didn't even know the writer of Harry Potter until five minutes ago. I had to look her up so obviously she isn't even that famous. 2nd of all, what kind of a name is J.K?! Just kidding?! What are you kidding about?**

 **"lol, I wrote a great series about wizards J.K it sucks"...You think she could get a little more creative, right? LOSER**

...You have to search for people. JK Rowling is much famous than Stephanie Meyer. Sorry if you expected her to pop up in front of your screen just as soon as you thought about her. Aaand...You just proved that you knew practically nothing about Harry Potter until five minutes (figuratively speaking) ago. J.K, are the initials, if you know what an initial is. JKR. Those are Joanne 'Katleen' Rowling's initials. The publisher suggested it so male readers will be interested in the series, too. Eager to get her book published, JKR agreed. Making fun of her name won't make me respect you, so won't calling her a 'Loser'. You don't see me making jabs at Stephanie Meyer in public, do you? It's called politeness. Here's a dictionary- you can look it up.

Now, since I'm not a completely unreasonable person, I'll show you twihards that there were arguments that were actually worth answering. Here are a few-

 **The Harry Potter characters would be useless without magic:** That's a very good argument. But I answer- no. They wouldn't have been. In Philosopher's Stone, Ron gets them through the chess game with his strategic talent and without any magic. In the same book, Hermione figured out the Potions' riddle without any magic and with her wits alone. Harry or she might have died if she hadn't. During Chamber of Secrets, Harry slayed a basilisk with nothing but a sword ( _at age twelve_ ), and in Order of the Phoenix, when Umbridge was about to use a torturing charm on Harry, Hermione quickly rescued herself and her friend with her wits, dragging them into the Forest where the centaurs dragged Umbridge away. Ron destroys the locket Horcrux without magic (Sword of Gryffindor) and Neville kills Nagini (the snake Horcrux) with, again, the Sword of Gryffindor. So I'd say they're pretty good without magic, too. Also, Bella wouldn't survive without either Edward or Jacob by her sides, which is, if you ask me, rather sexist. Jacob saves her after she nearly killed herself jumping off a cliff, and Edward rescues her countless times that are too many to be counted. But good argument- that had been thinking for a while before I came up with a proper rebuttal.

That's pretty much it for now- I'm sorry if I didn't do you twihards justice, but my head hurts right now from searching the web for arguments. Rest assured that all the silly ones were made by one person, so you need not be shamed that such idiots are scattered around your fandom...We have some Potterheads who're a bit dumb themselves...somewhere.

But be warned- if you dare insult Harry Potter and its fanbase, here's what I'm gonna say to you:

Me: LALALALALALAH! Sorry, what'd you say? Can't hear you over the sounds of our THEME PARK...and while I'm reading the most written fanfictions of HARRY POTTER (it's the first on the list!) and playing MUGGLE QUIDDITCH which is now actually an international sport!

 **Bye, bye!**

 **-Please Review-**


	3. YouTube Arguments

Hi! Well, first, I'd like to apologize to everyone. I just realized the last argument was a troll. I mean, no one can be that stupid. I worked up myself over nothing. Anyone, just so everyone can know, I've been reading up a bit of Twilight so I can write more on my Cullens vs Weasleys debate.

In the meanwhile, I comeneted on something in YouTube. This small comment led to an argument between myself and a twihard *who hasn't watched the movies, but read the books. She will remain anonymous out of my respect for privacy. Also, this may not be quite as polite as my others because I haven't really been putting in mind that I may use the arguments for my debate- so here we go…

Her: *after seeing the comment I posted*

 **those aren't even facts why the movies are better there opinions** **.**

Me:

 **They're better than most twilight arguments that go all: OHH GOD! ROBERT PATTINSON IS SOOO HAWWWT! At least Harry Potter actors have talent. I wasn't even being serious- I can present solid arguments about why HP is better, but we'd be standing here til doomsday before that list is over. And I hate Kristen Stewart. She cheated on Rob Patt.**

Her:

 **if you say you can present solid arguments post 50 reasons**

 **Sure. Here we go...** **  
** **1) Stephanie Meyer isn't good at the 'show don't tell' part. For example, Bella tells us her mother, Renee, is hare-brained during the first book. Meyer didn't provide any action-related evidence to Renee being hare-brained. Rowling, on the other hand, balanced show don't tell quite well. She doesn't tell you Dudley Dursleys a spoilt prat- she makes him throw a bowl of cereal at the wall, have him complain about having less than 39 birthday presents and be a fat bully in general- it's clear as day he's a brat.** ****

 **2) Hermione Granger is a strong and witty character who is witty and not much of a looker- Rowling says Hermione is based on herself because she was never beautiful when she was younger, so she relied on her wits. Hermione grows up into an amazing young woman and a strong female, unlike Bella, she does not attempt to throw herself of a cliff when Ron leaves, and she doesn't rely on Ron and Harry to save her life every time. In fact, Harry and Ron would be dead ten times, give or take, without her.** ****

 **3) There are different themes of love in Harry Potter- Platonic, familial, and romantic. All of these are emphasized throughout the series- Lily and James (and Sirius) die protecting Harry, Ron and Hermione have always got his back, and his love for Ginny is one of the strongest of bonds. Whereas Twilight only has Romance. Yes, I understand its theme IS romance, but there is barely any platonic or familial love, which just makes it all the more unrealistic.** ****

 **4) Twilight's love doesn't make a lot of sense and is kind of unbelievable. They just...fall in love instantly. Harry? It took him six years to REALLY notice Ginny! A developing love that grew stronger over the years. She fights for him, he fights for her. Bella just sits around and mopes after Edward breaks up with her to protect her from the damn monster on her trail, but Ginny looks Harry in the eye, smiles grimly and, says: "It's for some stupid noble reason, isn't it?"** ****

 **5) Harry and Ron trust Ginny and Hermione more than Edward trusts Bella. He stole the freaking motor out of her car so she couldn't sneak off and see Jacob. Despite Ron's jabs at Vikto Krum (Hermiones breif-time boyfriend) and Harry's short dislike of Dean during book 6 (Ginny's ex-BF) they never physically interfered with Hermione and Ginny's relationships- not because they didn't love them, but quite the contrary.** ****

 **6) Quidditch is an original game with an original name which is mentioned throughout the series- Vamprie baseball is just...well, baseball played by vampires which only had one chapter dedicated to it during book 1 and was barely (if ever) mentioned again. Like...like it was just shoved in there with the plot for dramatic effect.** ****

 **7) Unlike Bella, Harry doesn't ignore the friends he makes at Hogwarts. Bella totally ignores them most of the time because she's too busy staring at those oh-so-perfect Cullens.** ****

 **8) JK Rowling is completely unbiased. She had black, Asian, and homosexual people with major roles. Dumbledore, one of the greatest wizards to ever live, is/was gay. Angelina Johnson married George Weasley, Harry's best friend's brother, and she's black. (So is Dean Thomas and Lee Jordon) Cho Chang, whom Harry had a crush on for two years, is an Asian. All Stephanie Meyer's characters are white, movies disregarded.** ****

 **9) I would have added King's statement about Meyer not being able to write worth a darn here, but sine that's opinion, I won't. JK Rowling's books are hard to put down. As for SM, well, if you aren't a girl who's a romance addict, you can barely force yourself through 50 pages a day. I'm thirteen- a hormonal teenage girl- and I don't quite enjoy twilight.** ****

 **10) The guy SPARKLES! That's just not right- if you ask me, it's just a factor to attract teenage girls. If you're a boy, you'd gape at that part of the book which says he sparkles. Yes, it's original. No, it's not creative. It's just in there to make you teenagers squirm. I'm not including myself in this- I ain't voting for any sparkles. Rowling, on the other hand, gets her facts right- her werewolves transform at the full moon, and are NOT shapeshifters!** ****

 **11) Jacob Black is a watered-down version of Sirius Black- I mean, come ON! His last name's 'Black', he can turn into a black canine, and he has a motorcycle. Sounds familiar? And who came first? Hmm?** ****

 **12) Bella NEVER suffers the consequences of ANYTHING she does. NEVER. Every mistake she makes is always insignificant or dismissed without much fuss. Harry's mistake ended up with his godfather dead, his recklessness as he runs after Bellatrix leads him to almost being killed himself. What consequences does BELLA have to suffer? Her dear baby Edward away from her? Aww...It's not like Harry had to stay away from Ginny voluntarily for a few months, eh?** ****

 **13) JKR throws things in her dialogue- so plain and casual foreshadowing that you immediately dismiss it. Like when in goblet of fire, she says Hermione had a beetle in her hair and Harry saw one while he overheard the conversation between Hagrid and Olympe. They were added in such a way that you wouldn't think the significant. The result? Guess who's animagus is a beetle? (** **cough** **Rita Skeeter** **cough) Meyer tries to do that- she really does. But it just doesn't work. It's obvious something related to the text will happen.** ****

 **14) Twilight is so sexist that it hurts.** **  
** **Ex: 1- Bella was worried for her mom, but then Phil's there, so she's gonna be A-OK!** **  
** **2- Bela makes you feel like life without a man is worthless. She throws. Her. Self. Off. A. Freaking. CLIFF! And of course, Jacob saves her. Jacob and Edward have to save Bella countless times throughout the series. She never does anything for herself besides mope.** ****

 **15) Jacob falls in love with a BABY! Hell, if that isn't pedophilia, I don't know what is! I mean, come on people, that is just wrong! I know you agree with me- him falling in love with a freakin infant isn't...how do you put this...compatible. Yes, I'll stick with that word.** ****

 **I'm done with the first fifteen- hah, bet you thought I wouldn't do it. Anyway, I'm too paranoid to write all fifty and end up with them being canceled all at one, so I'll write the rest separately- now YOU give me 50 arguments on why twilight is better than HP, and counter all the arguments I've already made.**

And then…

 **Hi! I'm continuing with my list here...** ****

 **16) Many counter the fact that Bella is a Mary-Sue by saying Ginny is one. I disagree. Ginny STARTED as an annoyed character- she was squirmy, clingy, and squeamish. I hated her. A lot. But then, thanks to Hermione, she actually decided to have let go of those habits and accept that she couldn't have everything. Just because she got over her flaws like any normal human would (Hermione gets over bossiness, Ron takes QUITE a while to get over his jealousy, Snape, in his last moments, had gave up his bitterness, Remus gives up his self-hatred, etc...) doesn't make her perfect. And Harry doesn't spend half of the books describing how perfect Ginny's face is like Bella does Edward.** ****

 **17) All Bella does is cry when she's angry and frustrated, and think of Edward- no one else. It's rather selfish really- like when she steals her college funds without much guilt to fix Jacob's motorcycle, which was none of her concern. For a moment, didn't she ever feel a twinge of guilt about doing what she did? Did she think of Charlie? And did she get in trouble for what she did? Hmm?** ****

 **18) One sentence for this one: I don't find it very realistic that Bella's parents didn't put up much of a fight about her marrying a freakin' Merlin forsaken Vampire and having a baby while still in her teens- Ginny and Harry had their first at nearly the age of 23.** ****

 **19) Deathly Hallows brought tears to my eyes- I'll just let you know not many books can do that. DH, however, took the cake. It was so heart wrenching, so dramatic, that no one can help but cry. The most Twilight got me to do is bite my lip in anticipation.** ****

 **20) It's soo unrealistic that only the bad guys die- I mean, I don't want to live in that fantasy where all the good guys live happily ever after. I want pain- AGONY. I want to sob over my dead characters and fully understand how much they mean to me. I nearly cried at Cedric's death, I DID cry over Sirius', a shed a tear or two for Dumbledore; I bowed for Moody and Hedwig, sobbed for Remus, Tonks, and Fred, and BAWLED MY EYES OUT FOR SNAPE, WHOM I HATED SINCE BOOK 1 BUT HE TURNS OUT TO BE GOOD! Twilight never made me shed a single tear. Never.** ****

 **My brother's pulling the laptop away from me. I don't care if you don't believe me** **I'll continue tomorrow or sooner.**

And after that….

 **Here's a continuation...** ****

 **21) Meyer uses too much description. Too much of anything is bad- the description takes most of the book! Rowling has a slight think with adverbs, but at least they don't take up much space!** ****

 **22) Harry Potter has mystery which makes the gears in your brain start turning, thinking who the villain may be in the end- by the end of book 2, I knew JKR's writing is so unpredictable that the person you suspect will not likely be the evil guy by the end of the book. I tried telling myself I was ready by then, to get to book 3 and unsolve the mystery- I was not. Twilight has no mystery whatsoever- guys with red eyes are evl, guys with black or golden eyes are not. Simple as that.** ****

 **23) The Volturi do nothing except sit on their thrones and order people around. The Death Eaters, however, represent racism and cruelty, and the consequences of being biased. Voldemort, too, doesn't let his followers do all his dirty work- he ordered them not to touch Harry because he wanted to kill him my himself.** ****

 **24) Bella is blinded by 'love'. She has no logic whatsoever. And, sometimes, she's surprisingly observant, other times, she's as good as blind (couldn't even notice she walked into a room...hmph** ****

 **25) Rowling did a lot of research for her world- for Nicolas Flamel and his Sorcerer's Stone, translating her spells to several different languages, not just Latin, and there are so many hidden messages and facts in her stores that you can pass without thinking about twice. All Meyer did was research where Forks was because she needed a rainy place with no sunlight so her vamps can't sparkle for other people** ****

 **-Half way THROUGH!**

 **All of these were my reasons- I didn't look up any debate to prove them. Here's what she told me-**

 **Her:** 6 of those reasons are just Bella does nothing

 **Me:** **No. If so, then please point them out rather than grasping at straws. I don't see you giving me a reason. And 6 of this reasons is comparing feminism in HP to that in Twilight. I also talk about how Bella is just talent less and bland, and not how she does nothing. Why didn't you offer ME reasons? Because you haven't any. I've read enough Twilight to know what i'm talking about., and you just practically admitted that Bella does nothing. Give me TWENTY reasons why Twilight is better- reasons I can't rebuttal- and then I'll be convinced.** ****

 **Don't say, 'Edward is hot!' or anything about the movies for that matter. We're talking books here.**

She did not counter my arguments. She asked me for 50, and I gladly gave her half the number up until now. I asked her for twenty, here's what she gave me-

Her:

 **has a plot** **  
** **HP movies r the** **  
** **same** **  
** **all twilight character are good or evil shorter** **  
** **shorter** **  
** **stays on one plot** **  
** **book covers are perfectly draw** **  
** **don't have to wait 2 years to see another part of the movie** **  
** **is original** **  
** **author of twilight didn't want to kill people just because**

Here's what I countered….:

 **Dear God, this is going to be so much fun! First off, you didn't counter any of my argument which means they're valid. Secondly, you haven't read Harry Potter, I have read Twilight AND Harry Potter. Thirdly, you provide no proof whatsoever, which makes it all the more easier for me.** ****

 **1) Points one and two are much the same, but no matter. Twilight has NO plot. Every book has only a few occasional bad-guys, the Jacob/Edward saving Bella, and then there's the love triangle, then Bella simply marries Edward and they have a kid. That's no plot- I'm sorry, it just isn't.** ****

 **2) Harry Potter has a LOT of plot-** ****

 **Book 1- Harry, Hermione, and Ron save the Sorcerer's Stone from Lord Voldemort and Quirrel.** ****

 **2) Harry and Ron find the chamber of secrets, kill a basilisk (without magic :D) and help save all the petrified students.** ****

 **3) Sirius Black, a serial killer who, in the end, turns out to be innocent (and is Harry's godfather) breaks out from Azkaban and everyone thinks he's trying to kill Harry, but he's not, and it turns out to be Peter Pettigrew, a man whom they all though was dead. That was a HUGE plot twist.** ****

 **4) The Tri-Wizard Tournament is BACK! And somehow, Harry is in it, though he's not supposed to be. He fights a dragon, mermaids, and goes through a maze where he watches Cedric Diggory die before his eyes and Lord Voldemort coming back to life!** ****

 **5) Harry is introduced to the Order of the Phoenix, a secret group to fight Voldemort. They're also protecting something...a secret weapon. Throughout the year, Harry learns about a prophecy, and breaks into the Ministry with his group of friends, but not before encountering Dolroes Umbridge, who takes the cake for worst teacher ever!** ****

 **6) Harry discovers the old Potions book of the Half-Blood Prince, a mysterious person whose identity is shocking...He suspects his archenemy, Draco Malfoy, is up to something...Harry learns about Horcruxes, andsets out to find and destroy them with the help of Albus Dumbledore, who, in the end, is killed by the Half-Blood Prince.** ****

 **7) This is the book that made me cry. Calling it plot-less will be like calling me soulless. Harry, Ron, and Hermione set out on their final journey to destroy all the Horcruxes, with no guidance whatsover. They learn that to destroy Horcruxes, you need to damage them beyond repair, kill them for lack of a better time...And Harry?...Harry's a Horcrux. (sobs)** ****

 **There.** ****

 **point 3- Not all characters are good or evil! BWAAHAHAHA! Now that's rich! Meyer practically tells us everyone with red eyes is evil, and everyone with yellow eyes is good. JKR stated that no character of hers is completely evil except Lord Voldemort, who is evil because he cannot understand the meaning of love. There are SO many quotes for that...Like, say, "There is good and evil in all of us- it is the part we choose to act on that matters."- Albus Dumbledore. And Draco Malfoy, who was ordered to kill Dumbledore, but couldn't. He couldn't kill him. On goodreads, there are exactly 234 (or 243?) good/evil quotes from JKR. And what about Regulus Black, who realized his mistake in following Lord Voldemort too late, and lost his life trying to destroy his locket Horcrux. Severus Snape, you agreed to be a spy and risk his life for the good side because his evil actions of the past got the love of his life murdered? He asks Harry to look at him as he died, just so he can see Lily's eyes, one last time before he was gone for good. Don't tell me that's evil one, evil always. If anything, JKR is the mistress of balance. So, no, not everyone is evil completely, or completely saint-like. Everyone is Twilight, though, definitely is.** ****

 **4 & 5) So? In fact, I wish HP books were even longer than they are. Just because you can't handle reading long books or watching long movies, doesn't make the books/movies any less brilliant! And Twilight books aren't every short, either, for your information. You're just grasping at straws here** ****

 **6)...What the hell? Ok, first, you said HP had no pot and Twilight had plot, and now you're saying Twilight has only one plot? Uh, elaborate, please? You're repeating yourself and confusing me.** ****

 **7) They're not drawn. Ok, what do the book covers have to do with how good a book is? And they are NOT DRAWN. No effort has been put into them. They're just plain and edited, and have nothing at all to do with the books. An apple, a ribbon, a flower? What do they have to do with anything? Harry Potter's books are beautifully drawn and there has been a lot of effort put into each, the drawings getting better by each book. And they're perfectly connected to the plot of each book.** ****

 **8) So? Us fans WANT the movies to take long so we know they're good. First, why are we even talking movies when I was talking about books? Your point is invalid. Just because the movie makers take time and effort to make their movies, doesn't mean us fans are sad about it. Our least successful movie bought more than your most successful one, just for the record.** ****

 **9)Yes. It is original. But, so? Harry Potter is tons more original than it is- with a Republic system of its own, an entire world, schools, sports, competitions, traditions, its own kind of racism, etc. That just makes it more realistic. And EVERY book has to be original- or else they never would have been published at all.** ****

 **10) JKR didn't kill people just because. SM is just afraid to kill any good guys die EVERYWHERE- in ALL the books. Whether they be the Maze Runner, Hunger Games, Percy Jackson...Twilight's lack of good-guy deaths just makes it bland and unrealistic. THEY WERE IN A WAR. It is realistic for evil, as well as good people to 's called life.** **  
** **And some deaths were symbolic- like Cedric, to symbolize the beginning of a war, and Hedwig, to symbolize the end of Harry's childhood. And Dumbledore- to represent lack of hope when the strongest savior is gone. And in Twilight, SM kills the bad guys off just because. For no reason at ALL.** ****

 **You asked me for 50, why did u give me only 10 when I asked for just 20, which is 30 reasons lesser than you've asked of me?** ****

 **Also, I'm not being mean about this or anything- I'm just advertising my opinions.**

That's pretty much all. I'm waiting for her reply. Some may accuse me of being a twi-hater, but I'm really not…I just don't like how it makes people underrate HP.

Anywhos….I need help with my Cullens vs Weasleys. I feel it's unfair if I don't give the Cullens their justice. I read about them, but I just can't understand the characters well. Advice on that matter is welcome!

-Ambs


End file.
